We understand, and up to a point respect, the
gripes of those who bemoan the lack of competition in local
legislative races.

But no one should be shocked that state Sen.
Mark Miller, D-Monona, attracted no opponents, and that state Sen.
Fred Risser, D-Madison, will face only a token challenge from a
perennial candidate running as an independent.

Nor should anyone be surprised that Madison
Reps. Joe Parisi, Terese Berceau, Spencer Black and Mark Pocan have
no foes in their Democratic primaries or in November.

The fact is that Madison is represented in
the Legislature by progressives who share the city's values.

Our legislators tend to be leaders in the two
chambers: Risser is the Senate president; Pocan and Miller serve on
the powerful Joint Finance Committee; Parisi is a contender for a
top leadership post, perhaps majority leader, in the next Assembly.
They are, as well, leaders when it comes to promoting the interests
and ideals of Dane County: Risser is the great defender of the
University of Wisconsin, Miller's in the forefront of the struggle
to expand access to health care, Black is the Assembly's most
ardent environmentalist, Berceau champions a woman's right to
choose, Pocan is a bold and articulate advocate for gay and lesbian
rights.

It is true that a minority of Madisonians,
roughly 30 percent of the electorate, votes for Republican
candidates in federal and state races -- although that figure may
drop this fall, with popular presidential candidate Barack Obama
and U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, leading the Democratic
ticket. It is also true that the Green Party has a strong base of
support, especially on Madison's isthmus, and has pulled as much as
30 percent in some precincts in countywide races.

But those who want more diverse
representation from Madison and Dane County achieve little by
griping about the political successes of our current senators and
representatives.

Rather, they should embrace electoral reforms
-- such as multi-member districts or proportional representation --
that could provide representation to Republicans, Greens and
perhaps even Libertarians in the Madison area.

Under a multi-member district plan, voters in
a Senate district might still elect three Assembly representatives.
But instead of having each of the Assembly members represent a
specific subdivision within the Senate district, representatives
could be elected districtwide. District residents would vote for
three candidates. But backers of a Republican or Green might choose
to back just one contender -- concentrating their limited power
behind that candidate.

Under a proportional representation plan, a
resident of a multi-member district might cast his or her vote for
a party slate and the seats would then be distributed according to
the percentage received by each party. For instance, if 66 percent
of the vote went to the Democratic slate and 34 percent to a Green
slate, two Democrats and one Green would be elected.

Another system, instant-runoff voting, allows
voters to rank their candidate choices for a particular office.
This system is especially appealing for nonpartisan elections, as
it allows citizens to express a first-choice preference and, if the
preferred candidate cannot win, votes are then transferred to a
second choice. But it might have applications in legislative
contests.

Of course, these reforms may seem complicated
to voters who are used to single-member districts and the
traditional system where the candidate who gains the most votes in
a district wins the seat.

But, as other countries have long recognized,
and as other states and communities in the U.S. are coming to
recognize, voters are quite capable of embracing more democratic
systems that produce broader partisan and ideological
representation.

To their credit, some Wisconsin legislators
are exploring options for electoral reform. Mark Pocan and Mark
Miller are leaders on this front.

Thus, even as they run unopposed this fall,
the two Dane County Democrats are standing up for the interests not
just of their fellow partisans but of minority political views.